Summary Of 'God, The Founding Fathers, And The Making Of A Nation'

Of the fairly limited amount of books I have read in my lifetime regarding the origins of the country we live in today from a religious standpoint, the vast majority are rife with one scarcely mentioned and not infrequent pitfall of inaccuracy that glares at me as I flip through their pages: they sugarcoat the difficult parts. Any controversy that may mitigate their argument (such as the gruesome altercations between the early colonists and the Native Americans, Benjamin Franklin’s or Thomas Jefferson’s religious stances, or the Americans’ horribly violent recalcitrance against the nation they then considered home) is deceptively changed or mollified in attempt to please readers, or perhaps even more embarrassingly, omitted out of sheer ignorance on the subject. With The Light and the Glory, preacher Peter Marshall and New York publishing house editor David Manuel defy the stereotypes of American Christian authors and unapologetically disregard potential vitriol from their intended audience in the process. After conducting extensive research on the topics they planned to discuss in their book, Marshall and Manuel devised the following thesis for The Light and the Glory: (a) God has, or at least had, a definitive and demanding plan for America, and (b) our continual deviation from this plan is why modern America is so seemingly headed for

By the middle of the 1700’s, a significant organization took place. From New England to Georgia, different groups of Baptists began to form churches. They had only one doctrinal requirement that united them, i.e., the believer’s baptism by full immersion in water; also, Baptists then had different theological doctrinal beliefs. Notwithstanding, in the 1700’s, Baptist leaders sought to unify and homogenize the Baptist theology; they founded colleges and formed associations. However, the cause of “religious liberty,” was also a unanimous and significant characteristic that united the majority of Baptists. Their participation within their communities distinguished from other denominations. The Baptists were not contending for tolerance but for absolute “religious liberty.” Theirs demand was not for their right only but for the right of all dissenters and non-conformists as well. Some historians affirm that religious liberty in America was accomplished due to the diligence of the American Baptist, which now is proven to be the greatest contribution to American science and statecraft.”11

The third impact of democracy on American religion is a sense of grand ambition. The hope and optimism that were so central to democracy often resulted in dreams and aspirations of significant social change and progress. Methodists like Garrettson were particularly noteworthy in their ambition. Though the Methodist system used a hierarchical system of governance, that system was intended to be a force for liberation. We see this grand ambition of liberation clearly in the life of Garrettson. Shortly

David Barton’s Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution, and Religion, breaks down the significance of how religion was intended in the First Amendment and its effect on the phrase, “Separation of Church and State.” Barton well illustrates how the founding fathers incorporated the position of religion into the First Amendment. Barton explains how the House Judiciary Committee believes, “The founders did respect other religions; however, they neither promoted pluralism nor intended that the First Amendment do so” (175). They continue to discuss how the founding fathers were all Christians and they expect it to remain that way in the lives of the citizens. In Barton’s views of the First Amendment, he believes it has changed dramastically

Thomas Jefferson wrote of the Catholic Church in France: ‘History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.’ Jefferson, in his own book of biblical stories, suggested that religion was a set of moral conventions that promoted social harmony. But with antipathy between America’s Protestant and Catholic populations at the time, social harmony had yet to be promoted. Howard Zinn writes that the prejudice apparent in the Civil War period included not only ‘racial hatred for blacks’ and ‘nativist fury against immigrants’, but also ‘religious warfare against Catholics.’

This paper is a book critique of The Godless Constitution. The first chapter of the book is titled “Is America a Christian Nation?” and it is an introduction for the rest of the book. In this chapter, the main idea is to open the reader’s mind about that the constitution was created with the idea that religious believes will not influence in the politics of the nation. The authors state that “The principal framers of the American political system wanted no religious parties in national politics” (Kramnick and Moore, 23). Actually, the creation of a constitution without influence of religion was not an act of irreverence. The authors believe that the creation of the constitution was a support to the idea that religion can preserve the civil morality necessary for democracy, without an influence on any political party. The end of the chapter is the description of the following chapters and with a disguise warning that both authors were raise in religious families and they wrote the book with high respect for America’s religious traditions (Kramnick and Moore, 25). The second chapter, called “The Godless Constitution” explains how the different terms to talk about God were taken out and a “no religious test” clause was adopted with little discussion. This clause was a “veritable firestorm” during the ratification debates in several states (Kramnick and Moore, 32). For many people the “no religious test” clause was considered as the gravest defect of the Constitution (Kramnick

The Articles of Confederation were extremely important in the founding of our government today. The Articles gave us a sort of good base to start from, and was ground breaking in the shaping of our new nation.

America today is permeated with natural law. Our founders were subscribers to natural law and believed that man’s inner morality can lead to sustaining a civil society. The forefathers of America were from different denominations that ranged from Presbyterian to Catholism. Some were even Deists. Even though their denominations varied, they all united under the idea that their Creator was the source of their reason (Levin 2009, 26). The result of these beliefs produced a religious liberty throughout the country. That liberty still stands today. Natural law, contrary to the thoughts of its non-supporters, does not make a country into a theocracy. Since God’s laws are universal, the creed of a person does not change the fact that they entitled to their God-given rights. The founders were extremely foresighted because they acknowledged that liberty is inseparable from religious liberty (Levin 2009, 29). Another example of how natural law is in America’s founding is the right for citizens to disobey man-made laws that tyrannical in nature. All laws that are not given by the consent of the governed have the potential to be overthrown. America’s Declaration of Independence even says that the people should go as far as overthrowing the government if it becomes too powerful (Levin

In the documentary A New Eden: God in America, the class was given the opportunity to explore America’s chase to religious freedom and the political challenges it took to achieve such and opportunity where people for the first time were given a chance to seek religious faith that was not imposed upon them, but one that they can personally choose to live for themselves. The problem that would come about during the arrival Catholic immigrants’ as it was thought to believe their arrival would come to oppose the very religious they worked so hard for, while from their perspective they were merely trying to live an average life in America with all it has to offer just like everyone has. The challenge was most expressed in a judicial case of public

The word “God” or “Christianity” is often thrown around in the political world today. Candidates often can be seen supporting the invasions of other nations, but then claiming a strong devotion to God only a few moments later. The question is, “how has America become such a broken nation with such distorted views of the role of Christianity?” The emergent idea of America as a Christian nation is an important and relevant issue with many possible consequences. In reality, there are many cultural and religious influences in the nation, but many people have internalized the idea that the Christian religion is not solely an influential aspect of our society, but instead helps to construct the society itself. Personally, before reading

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson wrote those words to express the emotions of a nation that desired freedom, and to shake the foundation of the British Empire. However, this simple, but eloquent phrase has sparked one of the greatest debates in American history. Is America a Christian nation? One question has divided the nation and its politicians since the founding and forming of America. This fiery debate has sparked more controversy than any other debate in modern politics.

Religion and freedom is a topic so critical and (in the First Amendment) an outcome so pivotal that it is hard to envision causal associations being overlooked in the pre-Revolutionary period. However, that has been to a great extent the case as British approach and practice have been investigated solely from the point of view of political oppression or financial misuse. Carl Bridenbaugh has convincingly indicated how extraordinary was the provincial trepidation of a ministerial oppression designed by the Church of England. Conceived in destitution, Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) had turned into a rich Tennessee legal advisor and rising youthful government official by 1812, when war broke out between the United States and Britain. His administration in that contention earned Jackson national distinction as a military saint, and he would turn into America 's most influential–and polarizing–political figure amid the 1820s and 1830s. After

But if we shall neglect…shall fall to embrace this present world and prosecute our carnal intentions, seeking great things for ourselves and our posterity, the Lord will surely break out in wrath against us” (Winthrop, 20). This idea that the Christian deity is somehow connected to America’s greatness can be found in Conwell’s work, albeit used in a different manner.

The Founding Fathers: A Reform Caucus in Action, written by John P. Roche, addressed the difficulty that the Founding Fathers had in constructing the U.S. Constitution because of the high level of stress they received and the limited amount of time that they had to carry out the formation of this document while keeping the best interest of the country as a priority. John P. Roche starts of by commenting on why the creation of the Constitution was so effective and how the Articles of Confederation benefitted the ratification of the new U.S. Government. As it turns out, the delegates elected to attend Pennsylvania were mainly people who had served in Congress and had experience in the weakness of the Articles in granting too little power to the national government. In addition, the delegates were appointed by the state legislatures, not by the people, as justified by the Articles of Confederation.

“Faith, Truth, and Tolerance in America,” is a speech by Edward M. Kennedy established through literary devices. As he spoke to the college through this dialog there was historical, political and social views but also historical political views and points in which the speech had progressed by expressing views of religion being an aspect in how the government were to rule. Though there is multiple literary devices that are used to create ethical, emotional, and logical appeal, although the majority is ethical, he brings historical factors of political views of past politicians of whether or not it should be an aspect or an influence in government, most of which were presidents at one time or another. Thus informing the audience of the support